Page 77 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

ฉบับพิเศษ ประจำ�ปี 2564

What is the meaning of this difference? The view formulated and held by
the High Court is based on the concept of international commercial transactions in
which good faith transactions are consecutively accumulated and connected with former

transactions. The importing dealer should somehow verify the genuine ownership of
the exporter for connecting different domestic markets, and the successive purchasers
can rely on the good faith relationship of this import transaction as a connection between

different markets.
The transaction is not considered here to be separated and atomically

individualized, but to be connected to the former, building up the accumulated
good-faith relationships. Here we can find another kind of concept of secure and stable
transaction in the international context, namely based on openness and reliance rather

than exclusion and enclosure.

2. Choice-of-law dimension for a secure and stable transaction

Implication of lex loci rei sitae
As discussed above, the principle of lex loci rei sitae has strong implications

for diachronic change in the applicable law. In accordance with this principle,
the applicable law shall diachronically change, due simply to transporting a movable
to another country. The law of the place, in which a movable currently exists, regulates

ownership in an exclusive manner, possibly opposed to the former applicable law. Such
an exclusive ruling of the current lex loci rei sitae enables the break-off of legal titles
recognized by the former lex loci rei sitae. This kind of non-causality of the current
41

41 In this sense, the principle of lex loci rei sitae itself implies a possible obstacle to international commerce
developing through different countries. Regarding conflict-of-laws treatment, another element necessary for rendering
cross-border commerce more secure and stable is the commensurability of legal titles to be recognized by different
domestic laws (e.g. between “property”, “Eigenthum”, “propriété”, and “Sho-yû-ken[所有権]”) and the universal
recognition and respect of such a legal title regarded as a universally commensurable unit of legal right. The
critical point is how to conceptualize such a universally commensurable legal unit, more precisely whether or not
the ownership is an appropriate and unique unit for universal recognition. This issue concerns a more general and
difficult problem of how to construct the comprehensive structure (that is to say the “System”) composed of legal
institutions.

75